Agi Suretrack LLC v. Farmers Edge Inc., Farmers Edge (us) Inc.

United States Court of Appeals
for the Federal Circuit
______________________
AGI SURETRACK LLC,
Plaintiff-Appellant
v.
FARMERS EDGE INC., FARMERS EDGE (US) INC.,
Defendants-Cross-Appellants
______________________
2024-1730, 2024-1830
______________________
Appeals from the United States District Court for the
District of Nebraska in No. 8:22-cv-00275-JFB-SMB, Sen-
ior Judge Joseph F. Bataillon.
______________________
Decided: June 2, 2026
______________________
J ONATHAN STUART K AGAN, Irell & Manella LLP, Los
Angeles, CA, argued for plaintiff-appellant. Also repre-
sented by MORGAN C HU, L UCAS O XENFORD.
N ATHAN S. MAMMEN, Reichman Jorgensen Lehman &
Feldberg LLP, Washington, DC, argued for defendants-
cross-appellants. Also represented by COLE T HOMAS
T IPTON.
______________________
Case: 24-1730 Document: 65 Page: 1 Filed: 06/02/2026

-- 1 of 13 --

AGI SURETRACK LLC v. FARMERS EDGE INC. 2
Before M OORE, Chief Judge, MAYER and L OURIE, Circuit
Judges.
MAYER , Circuit Judge.
AGI SureTrack LLC (“AGI”) appeals a final judgment
of the United States District Court for the District of Ne-
braska holding that its asserted claims are directed to pa-
tent-ineligible subject matter. Farmers Edge Inc. and
Farmers Edge (US) Inc. (collectively, “Farmers Edge”)
cross-appeal, arguing that the district court erred in hold-
ing that the case was not exceptional. For the reasons dis-
cussed below, we affirm the district court’s conclusion that
the asserted claims are patent ineligible but vacate and re-
mand its no exceptionality determination.
I. BACKGROUND
Before the district court, AGI alleged that Farmers
Edge infringed claims of U.S. Patent Nos. 11,126,937 (the
“’937 patent”), 10,963,825, 11,164,116, 11,361,261, and
11,507,899 (collectively, the “Asserted Patents”).1 The As-
serted Patents relate “to automated systems and methods
for capturing, processing and sharing farming data, and
more particularly to systems and methods for capturing
farming operation data in real time using passive data col-
lection devices attached to farming equipment while the
farming equipment is used to perform the farming opera-
tions, and then processing and sharing the farming opera-
tion data via an online farming data exchange system or
server.” ’937 patent, col. 1 ll. 19–27. For purposes of this
1 AGI’s patents share nearly identical specifications.
For ease of reference, we cite only to the specification of the
’937 patent.
Case: 24-1730 Document: 65 Page: 2 Filed: 06/02/2026

-- 2 of 13 --

AGI SURETRACK LLC v. FARMERS EDGE INC. 3
appeal, claim 1 of the ’937 patent is representative.2 It re-
cites:
1. A relay device for tracking farming operations
for a farming business, comprising:
(a) a microprocessor;
(b) a bus connector for connecting the relay
device to a message bus on a farming vehi-
cle or farming implement, wherein the
message bus is configured to carry mes-
sages generated by the farming vehicle or
the farming implement while the farming
vehicle and the farming implement are
used to perform the farming operation;
(c) a global positioning system [(“GPS”)] re-
ceiver that receives position and time sig-
nals from space-based satellites while the
farming operation is performed;
(d) a memory storage area that stores (i) an
electronic farm record for the farming busi-
ness, (ii) descriptive information about a
farming operation land segment associated
with the farming business, and (iii) a plu-
rality of implement profiles each defining,
for a known farming implement, a known
manufacturer code, a known device class, a
known version and a known communica-
tion protocol; and
(e) an application program comprising pro-
gramming instructions that, when
2 AGI makes no separate arguments regarding eligi-
bility for any claim other than claim 1 of the ’937 patent.
Case: 24-1730 Document: 65 Page: 3 Filed: 06/02/2026

-- 3 of 13 --

AGI SURETRACK LLC v. FARMERS EDGE INC. 4
executed by the microprocessor, will cause
the microprocessor to automatically
(i) extract content from one or more
messages transmitted on the mes-
sage bus and use the extracted con-
tent to determine that there is a
match between the farming imple-
ment used to perform the farming
operation and the known farming
implement corresponding to one of
the plurality of implement profiles;
(ii) use the extracted content, the
position and time signals and the
known communication protocol de-
fined by said one of the plurality of
implement profiles to determine a
set of operating events and a travel
path for the farming operation,
(iii) use the set of operating events,
the travel path and the descriptive
information stored in the memory
storage area to determine that the
farming operation occurred on the
farming operation land segment,
and
(iv) record the farming operation
and the descriptive information for
the farming operation land seg-
ment in the electronic farm record.
Id. at col. 25 l. 34–col. 26 l. 9.
In April 2024, the district court granted Farmers
Edge’s motion for summary judgment, holding that the As-
serted Patents were directed to patent-ineligible subject
matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101. See AGI SureTrack LLC v.
Farmers Edge Inc., No. 8:22CV275, 2024 WL 1578164, at
Case: 24-1730 Document: 65 Page: 4 Filed: 06/02/2026

-- 4 of 13 --

AGI SURETRACK LLC v. FARMERS EDGE INC. 5
*1 (D. Neb. Apr. 11, 2024) (“District Court Opinion”). The
court stated that the claims “use generic (‘off the shelf’)
computers and sensors to collect data from standard farm
implements” and were “directed to software that collects,
processes, and shares data.” Id. at *6. In the court’s view,
moreover, “[t]he elements of the [a]sserted [c]laims consid-
ered individually and in an ordered combination d[id] not
transform them from an abstract idea into an inventive
concept.” Id. at *7. Additionally, the court determined that
the case was not exceptional for purposes of an award of
attorney’s fees pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 285. Id. at *1.
This appeal and cross-appeal followed. We have juris-
diction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1295(a)(1).
II. D ISCUSSION
A.
Patent eligibility under section 101 is a question of law
that may contain underlying findings of fact. Interval Li-
censing LLC v. AOL, Inc., 896 F.3d 1335, 1342 (Fed. Cir.
2018). A district court’s exceptional case determination is
reviewed on appeal for abuse of discretion. Highmark Inc.
v. Allcare Health Mgmt. Sys., Inc., 572 U.S. 559, 563 (2014).
The Supreme Court has set out a two-step framework,
commonly referred to as the “Alice test,” for evaluating sub-
ject matter eligibility. See Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS
Bank Int’l, 573 U.S. 208, 217–24 (2014). This framework
is useful in “distinguishing patents that claim laws of na-
ture, natural phenomena, and abstract ideas from those
that claim patent-eligible applications of those concepts.”
Id. at 217. At step one, we determine whether the claims
at issue are directed to a patent-ineligible concept such as
an abstract idea. Id. at 218. At step two, “we consider the
elements of each claim both individually and as an ordered
combination to determine whether the additional elements
transform the nature of the claim into a patent-eligible ap-
plication.” Id. at 217 (citation and internal quotation
Case: 24-1730 Document: 65 Page: 5 Filed: 06/02/2026

-- 5 of 13 --

AGI SURETRACK LLC v. FARMERS EDGE INC. 6
marks omitted); see PersonalWeb Techs. LLC v. Google
LLC, 8 F.4th 1310, 1314 (Fed. Cir. 2021).
B.
AGI argues that its claims fall within the bounds of sec-
tion 101 because they cover “a very specific and novel way
to collect and interpret, in real-time, data from a variety of
different brands of farm equipment, even if manufacturers
employ incompatible rules for encoding and transmitting
agronomic data.” Br. of Plaintiff-Appellant 4. Although
AGI acknowledges that “the general idea of collecting and
translating farming data may be abstract,” its claimed in-
vention is nonetheless patent eligible because its “solution
to the interoperability problem [between different brands
of farm equipment] is an unconventional hardware and
software system limited by a number of very specific re-
quirements and steps, narrowly defined to avoid preemp-
tion issues.” Id.
We do not find this argument persuasive. As a prelim-
inary matter, AGI points to nothing in the language of the
claims which refers to “interoperability” problems between
different brands of farm equipment. Even accepting ar-
guendo, moreover, AGI’s assertion that its claims disclose
a specific solution to the “problem of the incompatibility of
electronic communications systems in farming equipment
due to their use of different communication protocols,” id.
at 29, the claims are nonetheless directed to a patent-inel-
igible abstract idea.
Claim 1 of the ’937 patent recites “[a] relay device for
tracking farming operations for a farming business,” ’937
patent, col. 25 ll. 34–35, and specifies that this relay device
includes a microprocessor, bus connector, GPS receiver,
and memory storage area. Id. at col. 25 ll. 36–37, 44, 47.
The specification explains that existing “precision farming
techniques, computer systems and related technology
ha[d] . . . failed to provide farming businesses and other in-
terested parties with an easy-to-use, unobtrusive, secure
Case: 24-1730 Document: 65 Page: 6 Filed: 06/02/2026

-- 6 of 13 --

AGI SURETRACK LLC v. FARMERS EDGE INC. 7
and reliable way to capture, store, share and profit from
what is fast becoming a massive amount of very detailed,
and enormously valuable, farming operation data.” Id. at
col. 2 ll. 1–7. The specification further states that the
claimed invention purports to address these “problems by
providing a relay device, a farming data exchange system
and computer-implemented methods for tracking, collect-
ing, storing and sharing farming operation data for farm-
ing businesses.” Id. at col. 3 ll. 16–20. Thus, in explicit
terms, the specification describes the claimed invention as
a computer-implemented method for gathering and pro-
cessing farming data.
“As we have by now frequently held, claims reciting
generalized steps of collecting, analyzing, and presenting
information, using nothing other than the conventional op-
erations of generic computer components, are directed to
abstract ideas.” Mobile Acuity Ltd. v. Blippar Ltd., 110
F.4th 1280, 1293 (Fed. Cir. 2024); see Elec. Power Grp.,
LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2016)
(“[M]erely selecting information, by content or source, for
collection, analysis, and display does nothing significant to
differentiate a process from ordinary mental processes,
whose implicit exclusion from [section] 101 undergirds the
information-based category of abstract ideas.”). The fact
that the claims here are limited to a particular type of in-
formation—farming data—does not remove them from the
realm of the abstract. See, e.g., Sanderling Mgmt. Ltd. v.
Snap Inc., 65 F.4th 698, 703 (Fed. Cir. 2023) (“Even though
the information being distributed is of a particular vari-
ety . . . distribution of information is an abstract idea.”). As
we have previously emphasized, “an abstract idea remains
an abstract idea even when narrowed—e.g., by subject mat-
ter—to a particular use or environment.” GoTV Streaming,
LLC v. Netflix, Inc., 166 F.4th 1053, 1064 (Fed. Cir. 2026);
BSG Tech LLC v. BuySeasons, Inc., 899 F.3d 1281, 1287
(Fed. Cir. 2018) (“[A] claim is not patent eligible merely be-
cause it applies an abstract idea in a narrow way.”).
Case: 24-1730 Document: 65 Page: 7 Filed: 06/02/2026

-- 7 of 13 --

AGI SURETRACK LLC v. FARMERS EDGE INC. 8
We reject, moreover, AGI’s assertion that its claims are
not directed to an abstract idea because the claimed system
has the ability to detect the communication protocol that is
being used by a specific piece of farm equipment and relies
on a “plurality of different ‘implement profiles’ stored in
memory, each of which defines a communication protocol
needed to ‘decode’ messages that are sent from a particular
farming implement with which it is associated.” Br. of
Plaintiff-Appellant 9. The “implement profile[s]” in AGI’s
claimed system are simply a collection of data, see J.A.
1068–69, 1744, that can be used to decode or interpret
other data. See, e.g., RecogniCorp LLC v. Nintendo Co., 855
F.3d 1322, 1326–27 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (concluding that
claims directed to a process for encoding and decoding im-
age data were abstract). “Information as such is an intan-
gible,” Elec. Power Grp., 830 F.3d at 1353, and the claimed
method, which uses one set of data (implement profiles) to
interpret another set of data (information about farming
operations), “merely adds one abstract concept to another,”
ChargePoint, Inc. v. SemaConnect, Inc., 920 F.3d 759, 772
(Fed. Cir. 2019).
Contrary to AGI’s assertions, its claims are not di-
rected to a specific improvement in computer functionality
but instead invoke the use of generic computer components
to collect, analyze, and transmit farming data. See Cus-
tomedia Techs., LLC v. Dish Network Corp., 951 F.3d 1359,
1364 (Fed. Cir. 2020) (“To be a patent-eligible improvement
to computer functionality, we have required the claims to
be directed to an improvement in the functionality of the
computer or network platform itself” and “it is not
enough . . . to merely improve a fundamental practice or
abstract process by invoking a computer merely as a tool.”).
In this regard, AGI’s “specification is silent as to any spe-
cific structural or inventive improvements in computer
functionality related to [its] claimed system.” Id. at 1365.
Accordingly, as the district court correctly concluded, AGI’s
claims are directed to an abstract idea at Alice step one.
Case: 24-1730 Document: 65 Page: 8 Filed: 06/02/2026

-- 8 of 13 --

AGI SURETRACK LLC v. FARMERS EDGE INC. 9
C.
At Alice step two, we undertake “a search for an in-
ventive concept—i.e., an element or combination of ele-
ments that is sufficient to ensure that the patent in
practice amounts to significantly more than a patent upon
the ineligible concept itself.” Alice, 573 U.S. at 217–18 (ci-
tation, internal quotation marks, and brackets omitted).
Thus, “[i]f a claim’s only ‘inventive concept’ is the applica-
tion of an abstract idea using conventional and well-under-
stood techniques, the claim has not been transformed into
a patent-eligible application of an abstract idea.” BSG
Tech, 899 F.3d at 1290–91.
Here, AGI’s claims do not pass muster at Alice step two
because they are directed to gathering and analyzing a par-
ticular type of data and do not disclose any specific in-
ventive technology for performing those functions. See
Elec. Power Grp., 830 F.3d at 1354–56. They rely on ge-
neric computer components—such as a microprocessor, bus
connector, GPS receiver, and memory storage area—which
are used in a conventional manner to collect, analyze, and
display data. See ’937 patent, col. 25 ll. 36, 37, 44, 47.
While AGI’s claimed system relies on automation to speed
up the process of collecting and decoding data transmitted
from farm equipment, “the improved speed inherent with
applying [an] abstract idea using a computer” does not es-
tablish an inventive concept at Alice step two. Trinity Info
Media, LLC v. Covalent, Inc., 72 F.4th 1355, 1366 (Fed. Cir.
2023); see OIP Techs., Inc. v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d
1359, 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (“[R]elying on a computer to
perform routine tasks more quickly or more accurately is
insufficient to render a claim patent eligible.”). Thus,
whether we view the claim elements individually or as an
ordered combination, they contain no inventive concept
that would transform the abstract idea of collecting, inter-
preting, and transmitting data about farming operations
into a patent-eligible application of that idea. See Alice,
573 U.S. at 217–18. Accordingly, we affirm the district
Case: 24-1730 Document: 65 Page: 9 Filed: 06/02/2026

-- 9 of 13 --

AGI SURETRACK LLC v. FARMERS EDGE INC. 10
court’s determination that the Asserted Patents are not di-
rected to eligible subject matter.
D.
We turn next to the district court’s determination that
Farmers Edge had not established that this was an excep-
tional case for purposes of a fee award under section 285.
See District Court Opinion, 2024 WL 1578164, at *1. The
Supreme Court has explained that an exceptional case un-
der section 285 “is simply one that stands out from others
with respect to the substantive strength of a party’s litigat-
ing position (considering both the governing law and the
facts of the case) or the unreasonable manner in which the
case was litigated.” Octane Fitness, LLC v. ICON Health
& Fitness, Inc., 572 U.S. 545, 554 (2014). “District courts
may determine whether a case is ‘exceptional’ in the case-
by-case exercise of their discretion, considering the totality
of the circumstances.” Id. (footnote omitted).
Farmers Edge asserts that this is an exceptional case
because AGI: (1) engaged in inequitable conduct during
prosecution of the Asserted Patents; (2) made misleading
statements regarding the abandonment of certain claims;
and (3) engaged in improper litigation tactics and made un-
supported assertions regarding the existence of factual dis-
putes related to patent eligibility. Additionally, Farmers
Edge alleges that AGI and its counsel violated court-issued
protective orders.
According to Farmers Edge, the district court erred in
sua sponte entering judgment that the case was not excep-
tional without providing any explanation regarding the ba-
sis for its ruling. Farmers Edge further contends that it
should have been afforded an opportunity to present argu-
ment and evidence showing that the case qualified as ex-
ceptional under section 285 before the court ruled on the
issue. Cf. Am. Red Cross v. Cmty. Blood Ctr. of the Ozarks,
257 F.3d 859, 863 (8th Cir. 2001) (explaining that “a dis-
trict court may not grant summary judgment sua sponte
Case: 24-1730 Document: 65 Page: 10 Filed: 06/02/2026

-- 10 of 13 --

AGI SURETRACK LLC v. FARMERS EDGE INC. 11
unless the non-movant has been notified and afforded an
opportunity to respond”).
We have not in all cases required the district court to
detail its reasoning for concluding that a case is not excep-
tional. See Serio-US Indus., Inc. v. Plastic Recovery Techs.
Corp., 459 F.3d 1311, 1322 (Fed. Cir. 2006) (upholding the
denial of fees under section 285 notwithstanding the fact
that the district court did not “issue any opinion explaining
its reasoning” for the denial because “the record as a
whole . . . adequately support[ed] the denial of attorney
fees”). Under most circumstances, however, a district court
making an exceptionality determination should “provide
some indication of the reasoning underlying its decision to
provide a basis for meaningful appellate review.” Superior
Fireplace Co. v. Majestic Prods. Co., 270 F.3d 1358, 1377
(Fed. Cir. 2001). Here, there is nothing in the district
court’s terse no exceptionality ruling or the record on ap-
peal which would permit us to appropriately review
whether the court abused its discretion in concluding that
the case was not exceptional. See id. (remanding an appeal
for clarification where the district court “fail[ed] to provide
any findings or reasoning” supporting its conclusion that
the case was not exceptional); see also Energy Heating, LLC
v. Heat On-The-Fly, LLC, 889 F.3d 1291, 1307 (Fed. Cir.
2018) (vacating and remanding where the district court did
not articulate a basis for denying attorney’s fees following
a finding of inequitable conduct); Innovation Techs., Inc. v.
Splash! Med. Devices, LLC, 528 F.3d 1348, 1350–51 (Fed.
Cir. 2008) (vacating and remanding where a district court
failed to make findings sufficient to support its exceptional
case determination). Accordingly, we are constrained to
vacate the district court’s determination that the case is
not exceptional and remand with instructions that the
court reassess, after giving both parties an adequate oppor-
tunity to present argument on the issue, whether the case
is exceptional and, if so, whether an award of attorney’s
fees under section 285 is appropriate.
Case: 24-1730 Document: 65 Page: 11 Filed: 06/02/2026

-- 11 of 13 --

AGI SURETRACK LLC v. FARMERS EDGE INC. 12
On appeal, AGI contends that Farmers Edge forfeited
its right to seek attorney’s fees pursuant to section 285 be-
cause it failed to comply with Federal Rule of Civil Proce-
dure 54(d)(2)(B) by filing a motion seeking such fees within
fourteen days after the district court entered judgment.
See F ED. R. CIV. P. 54(d)(2)(B) (stating that “[u]nless a stat-
ute or a court order provides otherwise,” a motion for attor-
ney’s fees must “be filed no later than [fourteen] days after
the entry of judgment”). Farmers Edge counters, however,
that it could not in good faith have filed a motion seeking
fees in the fourteen-day period after the district court en-
tered judgment given that the court had already ruled the
case was not exceptional.
While Rule 54(d)(2)(B) states that, unless a statute or
court order otherwise provides, the applicable limitations
period for a motion for attorney’s fees begins to run four-
teen days from the entry of judgment, an Advisory Com-
mittee Note explains that the limitations period begins
anew if a new judgment is entered following an appellate
court remand.3 See F ED. R. CIV. P. 54 Advisory Committee
Notes, 1993 Amendments (explaining that “[a] new period
for filing will automatically begin if a new judgment is en-
tered following a reversal or remand by [an] appellate
court”); see also Quigley v. Rosenthal, 427 F.3d 1232, 1237
(10th Cir. 2005) (explaining that where there is a new judg-
ment following reversal, “the entry of such a judgment trig-
gers the running (for a second time) of the fourteen-day
time period set forth in Rule 54(d)(2)(B)”); Miltimore Sales,
Inc. v. Int’l Rectifier, Inc., 412 F.3d 685, 690 (6th Cir. 2005)
3 As the Supreme Court has emphasized, in ascer-
taining the meaning of the Federal Rules of Civil Proce-
dure, “the construction given to them by the [Advisory]
Committee is of weight.” Miss. Pub. Corp. v. Murphree, 326
U.S. 438, 444 (1946); see Spirit Lake Tribe v. Jaeger, 5 F.4th
849, 853 (8th Cir. 2021).
Case: 24-1730 Document: 65 Page: 12 Filed: 06/02/2026

-- 12 of 13 --

AGI SURETRACK LLC v. FARMERS EDGE INC. 13
(explaining that “[u]pon a reversal or remand by an appel-
late court, a ‘new’ judgment necessarily is entered, because
the original judgment has been reversed or vacated,” and
that “[a]fter entry of the ‘new’ judgment, the new prevail-
ing party should of course have a new fourteen-day period
within which to recover fees incurred”). Thus, because we
are today vacating and remanding the district court’s no
exceptionality determination, a new fourteen-day period
for filing a motion for attorney’s fees will be triggered once
the court enters judgment on remand. We have considered
the parties’ remaining arguments but do not find them per-
suasive.
III. CONCLUSION
Accordingly, the judgment of the United States District
Court for the District of Nebraska that the Asserted Pa-
tents are directed to ineligible subject matter is affirmed
but its determination that the case is not exceptional is va-
cated and remanded for further proceedings consistent
with this opinion.
AFFIRMED-IN-PART, VACATED-IN-PART,
AND REMANDED
COSTS
Farmers Edge shall have its costs.
Case: 24-1730 Document: 65 Page: 13 Filed: 06/02/2026

-- 13 of 13 --